Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value beyond the name: result ordering, the fields returned, per-role visibility scoping ('field workers see only their own'), and that the feed link is intentionally withheld on subsequent reads. However, it says nothing about pagination or limits on a list operation, which matters for an unbounded feed list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the scope and ordering front-loaded. The closing sentence 'The link is not shown again' is slightly cryptic in isolation but earns its place by flagging a security-relevant return behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape is covered, and the description adds useful scoping and visibility context. Gaps remain around pagination and the role of person_id, which for a two-parameter list tool with zero annotation coverage is a meaningful omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It never mentions shop_id or person_id. The field-worker scoping sentence gestures at the person_id filter but never explains whether person_id is an admin-only filter or a required pairing with shop_id, leaving the second parameter entirely opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: calendar feeds within a shop, with ordering (newest first) and returned attributes (active status, fetch frequency). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calendar_createFeed and calendar_revokeFeed. It stops short of stating the verb outright ('List'), but the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The reader must infer that this is the read counterpart to createFeed/revokeFeed. The only contextual hint is the visibility rule for field workers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.